0 
0 
0 

7 
4 
1 

0 
5 
4 


SIMMONS 
Remarks  of  Mr,  Simmons 


HG 
2529 
1841 
S6 


REMARKS 


MR,  SIMMONS,  OF  RHODE  ISLAND, 


THE  AMENDMENT  PROPOSED  BY 

MR.    RIVES,    OF    VIRGINIA, 

TO  THE  BILL 

"TO  INCORPORATE  THE  SUBSCRIBERS  TO  THE  BANK  OF  THE 

UNITED  STATES," 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,-  JULY  2,  1841. 


WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED  AT  THE  OFPICK  OK  THE  MADU»OMAX. 
1841. 


m  I  v    t 


ttfr 


REMARKS. 


The  Senate  having  resumed  the  considera 
tion  of  the  ''Bill  to  incorporate  the  subscribers 
to  the  Fiscal  Bank  of  the  United  States,"  anc 
the  following  amendment  proposed  by  Mr 
RIVES,  of  Virginia,  viz. 

"That  the  said  corporation  shall  establish  a  com- 
petent office  of  discount  and  deposit  in  any  State,  bj 
the  assent  of  the  Legislature  of  such  State,  whenever 
the  directors  may  think  fit  so  to  do ;  and  when  estab- 
lished, the  office  shall  not  be  withdrawn  without  the 
assent  of  Congress ;  and  the  said  corporation  shal 
have  power  to  commit  the  management  of  the  saic 
offices  and  the  business  thereof,  respectively,  to  such 
persons,  and  under  such  regulations,  as  .they  shal 
deem  proper,  not  being  contrary  to  law  or  constitution 
of  the  bank ;  or,  instead  of  establishing  such  offices,  it 
shall  be  lawful  for  the  directors  of  the  said  corpora- 
tion, from  time  to  time,  to  employ  any  individual, 
agent,  or  any  other  bank  or  banks,  to  be  approved  by 
the  Secretary  f>f  the  Treasury,  at  any  place  or  places 
that  they  may  deem  safe  and  proper,  to  manage  and 
transact  the  business  proposed  as  aforesaid,  other  than 
for  the  purpose  of  discount,  and  to  perform  the  duties 
hereinafter  required  of  said  corporation,  to  be  mana- 
ged and  transacted  by  such  officers,  under  such  agree- 
ments and  subject  to  such  regulations,  as  they  shall 
deem  just  and  proper." 

Mr.  SIMMONS  rose,  and  addressed  the  Sen- 
ate as  follows : 
MR.  PRESIDENT: 

The  direct  appeal  just  made  to  me  by  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr. 
Choate,)  for  the  vote  of  what  he  is  pleased  to 
call  the  '*  Emerald  Isle" — makes  it  proper  for 
me  to  accord  to  him  my  vote  in  favor  of  the 
proposed  amendment,  or  to  assign  to  him  and 
to  the  Senate  the  reason  why  I  do  not.  And 
this  appeal,  made  by  one*representing  a  consti- 
tuency of  similar  pursuits  and  interests,  and,  as 
I  had  before  supposed,  entertaining  similar  opi- 
nions with  those  which  I,  in  part,  represent  here, 
has  added  a  responsibility  to  my  position  which 
I  should  not  have  felt  but  for  this  circumstance. 

His  reputation  as  a  statesman  admonishes  me 
of  my  obligation  to  give  to  his  argument  and 
suggestions,  that  respect  and  consideration 
which  they  are  entitled  to,  on  account  of  their 
strength,  and  of  his  position  and  experience. — 
This  they  shall  certainly  have.  But  I  must  say 
to  the  honorable  Senator,  who  allows  me  to 
call  him  my  friend,  that  the  vote  of  the  "Eme- 
rald Isle,"  must  be  given,  on  my  part,  according 
to  the  dictates  of  duty,  although  she  should,  on 
this  question,  stand  "alone  in  the  ocean."— 


When  I  say  this,  I  am  sure  we  have  arrived  to 
that  condition,  when  we  can  differ  and  still  be 
friends.  I  will  add,  that  it  is  as  painful  to  me  as 
it  can  be  to  him,  to  differ  with  any  of  my  politi- 
cal friends  here,  or  elsewhere,  upon  this  ques- 
tion ;  but  having  no  doubts  in  my  own  mind,  and 
none  in  regard  to  the  sentiments  of  my  constitu- 
ents, my  path  is  plainly  indicated,  and  I  must  act 
upon  the  sentiment,  that  "obedience  is  better 
than  sacrifice."  I  am,  therefore,  constrained ,  by  an 
imperious  sense  of  duty,  to  vote  against  the  pro- 
posed amendment,  and  will  briefly  state  the  rea- 
sons. 

The  amendment  proposed,  is  intended  to 
change  the  principles  of  the  bill— this  is  its  sole 
object.  And  the  honorable  Senator  from  Vir- 
ginia (Mr.  Rives)  who  proposed  it,  has  urged 
its  adoption  with  eminent  ability.  He  has  stated 
his  positions  so  clearly,  that  even  as  unpractised 
a  man  as  I  am,  can  understand  most  of  them, 
and  this  implies  no  ordinary  talent  in  him.  His 
motion  is  two-fold  in  its  character;  it  is  to  strike 
out  and  insert;  and  all  his  propositions  are  dis- 
tinctly referable  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  two 
branches  of  it. 

I  propose  to  pass  over,  for  the  present,  the  ob- 
jections urged  against  the  bill  as  reported  ;  and 
to  consider  the  arguments,  used  in  favor  of  the 
provisions  proposed  to  be  inserted,  first,  although 
these  were  presented  last,  by  the  honorable 
Senator.  For  various  reasons  which  the  honor- 
able Senator  assigned,  he  assumed  as  admitted, 
that  the  constitutional  power  to  establish  a  Na- 
tional Bank  with  branches,  as  contemplated  by 
the  bill,  was  a  doubtful  or  questionable  power — 
that  in  all  doubtful  questions,  neither  party  should 
be  required  to  surre'nder.  To  do  this,  would 
create  ill-blood.  That,  by  his  proposition,  the 
disputed  point  would  not  be  surrendered,  but 
simply  postponed,  for  future  decision — (the  Se- 
nator from  Massachusetts  proposed  that  the  post- 
ponement should  be  to  the  time  of  the  *'  Greek 
Kalends,"  or  as  a  Yankee  boy  would  say,  "the 
day  after  never") — and  thus  avoid  all  difficulties. 
That  the  provisions  proposed  to  be  inserted 
would  involve  no  constitutional  question,  and 
would,  therefore,  produce  harmony,  insure  the 
success  of  the  measure,  and  accomplish  every 
practical  benefit  that  can  be  hoped  from  the  plan 
proposed  in  the  bill  as  reported. 

Having  stated  the  main  grounds  upon  which 
he  amendment  is  urged?  as  near  as  I  am  able 
to  do,  I  will  frankly  admit,  as  a  practical  man, 


(and  as  such  the  appeal  is  made  to  me,)  that, 
if  I  thought  these  positions  sound,  and  the 
plan  proposed  a  practicable  one,  the  question 
presented  wuuld  be  very  simple,  and  one  of 
exped  ency  merely.  We  should  have  only 
to  decide  whether  we  would  have  such  a  Bank 
as  experience  has  proved  to  be  a  good  one,  with 
a  few  men  in  doubt  about  our  power,  or  hazard 
a  change  in  respect  to  the  form  of  exercising 
the  power,  in  order  to  remove  their  doubts.  As 
1  would  not  sacrih'ce  a  practical  good  to  a  mere 
abstract  question  of  power,  1  would  decide  such 
a  question  in  reference  wholly  to  the  probable 
success  of  the  measure  itself.  But  if  I  can  sa- 
tisfy honorable  Senators  that  to  adopt  the  amtnd- 
ment  would  overturn  what  is  now  settled — sur- 
render what  they  say  should  not  be  surrender- 
ed, but  postponed  merely;  and  that,  after  doing 
this  injury,  the  bill  would  not  only  be  subject  to 
the  same  constitutional  objections,  but  also  be 
inconsistent  with  itself,  I  trust  they  will  agree 
ihat  the  amendment  should  be  rejected. 

I  have  t-aid  that  I  should  pass  for  the  present 
the  objections  of  a  constitutional  character,  urged 
against  the  hill  as  reported ;  but  I  must  notice 
one  upon  which  the  propriety  of  the  molion  it- 
self depends  ;  and  that  is,  that  the  constitutional 
power  to  establish  a  Bank  is  a  questionable 
one.  If  this  was  the  only  view  in  which  it  was 
presented,  I  would  content  myself  with  pro- 
pounding the  question  presented  by  the  two  pro- 
positions, to  wit:  which  of  the  twp  Govern- 
ments (the  State  or  the  National,)  has,  or  ought 
10  have,  the  constitutional  power  to  establish  the 
offices  or  branches  of  a  National  Bauk?  The 
proposition  carries  with  it  its  own  answer,  and 
cannot  be  illustrated  by  argument;  and  yet  the 
vote  upon  this  amendment  is  to  determine  on 
which  of  the  two  Governments  the  establish- 
ment of  such  offices  is  to  depend.  But,  for  the 
present  purpose,  I  shali  regard  the  question  of 
power  as  if  it  was  really  a  doubtful  one,  in  or- 
der to  tr'st  the  soundness  of  the  argument  of  the 
honorable  Senator  from  Virginia,  and  see  if 
there  is,  upon  the  ground  he  places  it,  good  rea- 
son to  change  the  bill,  so  that  the  establishment 
of  offices  shall  depend  upon  "the  assent  of  the 
State  Legislatures."  The  first  position  assumed 
by  the  honorable  Senator  is,  that  the  State  au- 
thoiiiy  can  be  used  without  a  surrender  of  the 
National.  Upon  the  correctness  of  this  depends 
all  his  argument  upon  the  subject  of  mutual  con- 
cession and  compromise.  This  point  was  sought 
to  be  established,  by  assuming  that  it  was  analo- 
gous to  the  question  of  jurisdiction  over  the  dis- 
puted territory  upon  our  Northeastern  boundary. 
As  he  complimented  me,  the  last  evening,  by 
inviting  my  special  attention  to  that  part  of  his 
argument  as  covering  the  question  now  involved, 
1  will,  after  making  my  acknowledgments  to 
him,  give  the  result  of  my  brief  examination 
of  it. 

I  will  state  the  proposition  as  he  did,  that  I 
may  meet  it  fairly.  The  honorable  Senator 


stated,  that  the  question  in  controversy ,  whether 
the  offices  of  the  Bank  shall  be  established 
within  the  limits  of  the  Slates,  by  the  Fi-deral 
or  the  State  authority,  was  one  involving  the  right 
of  jurisdiction,  and  analogous  to  that  over  the 
disputed  territory  reftrred  to — that  the  adoption 
of  the  amendment  would  postpone  the  question 
now  controverted,  as  the  question  of  jurisdiction 
had  been  postponed  between  this  and  the  Brit- 
ish Governments;  and  that  had  been  done  by 
agreement,  that  each  nation  shouid  occupy  up 
to  a  line  acknowledged  not  to  be  beyond  its  own 
proper  jurisdiction — leaving  the  territory  be- 
tween those  lines  unoccupied,  until  the  right  of 
jurisdiction  over  it  should  be  settled  by  agree- 
ment, or  otherwise ;  the  postponement  of  the 
question  being  alike  desirable  in  both  cases,  as 
the  means  of  securing  tranquility  in  each. 

If  I  admit,  for  the  purpose  of  testing  this  argu- 
ment, th£ ».  the  proposition  is  fairly  stated,  and 
that  the  analogy  (so  far  as  it  goes)  is  correct, 
the  honorable  Senator  will  undoubtedly  agree, 
that  in  doing  this,  1  have  consented  to  overlook, 
for  the  present,  the  fact,  that  the  power  to  estab- 
lish a  Bank  has  been  exercised,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  two  short  intervals,  by  the  National  Go- 
vernment, ever  since  its  existence;  and  ti.at  no 
such  power  was  ever  exercised  by  the  States,  as 
is  proposed  in  the  amendment ;  b«t,  taking  the 
proposition  as  presented  by  himself,  he  will  see 
that  it  does  not  carry  the  parallel  far  enough  to 
test  the  question  involved  in  this  debate.  It  only 
reaches  the  position  we  at  present  occupy,  and 
aptly  explains  it — that  is.  that  the  General  Gov- 
ernment have  undisputed  power  to  create  Banks 
in  this  District,  and  the  States  a  like  power  to 
do  so  within  their  limits;  this  does  not  reach 
the  question  of  the  power  to  establish  offices 
of  a  National  Bank  within  the  States.  That 
power,  like  the  jurisdiction  of  the  territory, 
is  not  now  exercised  by  any  government;  but  I 
was  very  happy  to  hear  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Virginia  say  that  it  ought  to  be  extrcised; 
that  there  was  now  a  necessity  for  a  Bank  for  the 
use  of  the  Government,  and  for  the  benefit  of 
the  people.  In  this  I  fully  con  cur.  And  I  thought 
a  conviction  that  such  nn  institution  was  neces- 
sary for  the  Government  to  carry  into  effect  its 
expressly  granted  powers,  would  remove  all  the 
scruples  of  the  most  fastidious. 
But  to  return  to  the  territory.  Theoccupation  of 
it  represents  the  exercise  of  this  questionable 
power.  Let  us  continue  the  parallel.  There  is  a  ne- 
cessity to  occupy  the  territory.  Suppose  our  Gov- 
ernment should  adopt  for  that  purpose  a  measure 
similar  to  the  one  proposed  in  this  amendment,  and 
authorize  a  company  of  men  to  occupy  it,  with  the 
assent  of  the  British  authorities,  and  the  men  ob- 
tained that  assent;  I  would  ask,  under  whose  juris- 
diction the  territory  would  be  after  these  proceed- 
ings? The  occupation  is  made  by  us  to  depend  on 
English  authority,  and  the  territory,  by  that  act, 
goes  under  her  jurisdiction.  And  let  me  tell  the 
honorable  Senator  that,  in  my  judgment,  there  is.- 


not  an  American  wood-chopper  along  the  whole 
of  our  Northeastern  line,  who  would  deign  to 
cut  a  log  or  trap  a  beaver  upon  that  territory,  un- 
der any  authority  emanating  from  the  British 
Crown.  He  would  instinctively  feel  that  it  was 
a  surrender  of  the  right!  He  would  not  care, 
nor  do  I  pretend  to  know,  what  the  national  law, 
as  laid  down  by  Vattel,  might  be  in  such  a  case, 
but  we  should  all  feel  that  this  would  be  the  law 
of  nature. 

And,  Mr.  President,  such  will  be  the  judgment 
of  the  whole  American  people  if  you  adopt  this 
amendment.  They  will  say  you  have  surren- 
dered the  power  of  this  Government  to  the  States. 
The  common-sense  view  of  the  settlement  of  a 
question  between  sovereigns  involving  the  exer- 
cise of  power  is,  that  the  right  passes  to  the  one, 
which,  by  the  acts  of  both,  is  allowed  to  exer- 
cise it.  I  would  ask  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Virginia,  who  enjoys  a  high  reputation  as  a 
statesman,  if  he  would  consent,  while  this 
question  of  jurisdiction  was  pending  between 
the  two  Governments,  that  ours  should  do  an  act 
like  this,  in  reference  to  that  territory  ?  Would 
it  not.  in  his  judgment,  determine  the  question 
against  us?  But  suppose  this  Government  had 
been  in  possession,  and  exercised  jurisdiction 
over  the  disputed  territory ,for  forty  years,as  fully 
as  they  have  exercised  this  power  to  establish 
the  offices  of  a  Bank,  would  he  advise  our  Gov- 
ernment to  give  up  the  possession,  and  to  retreat 
within  a  line  which  nobody  could  dispute  about, 
as  the  best  course  to  relieve  the  question  from 
embarrassment,  and  have  it  amicably  settled? — 
Or,  would  he  regard  the  question  as  relieved 
from  all  embarrassment,  and  as  settled,  by  con- 
tinuing the  same  jurisdiction  over  that  territory 
which  we  had  exercised  from  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Government?  It  is  perfectly  plain, 
in  every  aspect  in  which  the  question  can  be 
viewed,  that  instead  of  our  merely  forbefiring  to 
exercise  this  power,  or  postponing  it,  as  the  hon- 
orable Senator  supposed,  we  should,  by  the 
adoption  of  the  amendmenl,  do  all  we  could 
do  to  surrender  it.  Such  a  conclusion  is  irre- 
sistible. The  only  consideration,  then,  which 
he  presented  to  us,  who  preferred  the  bill  as  re- 
ported, has  failed ;  for  the  proposition  itself 
rested  upon  the  ground,  that  the  power  should 
not  be  given  up  or  surrendered. 

But,  if  we  could  do  this,  and  could  divest  this 
Government  of  this  power,  and  vest  it  in  the 
States,  this  amendment  would  not  remove  the 
supposed  constitutional  difficulty;  because  the 
amendment  itself  embraces  a  provision  to  em- 
ploy an  agent,  or  to  establish  an  agency>  in  any 
State,  without  the  assent  of  the  State — which 
agent  or  agency  is  authorized  to  transact  all  the 
business  of  the  Bank,  except  the  business  oi 
discounting  ;  and  it  is  urged  that  it  may  do  every 
thing  but  discount  promissory  notes.  Now,  it 
appears  to  me  perfectly  clear  that  it  would  re- 
quire the  same  power  to  establish  an  agency  to 
receive  deposits,  circulate  the  notes  of  the  Bank, 


LIBRAKY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
SANTA  BARBARA 

and  deal  in  bills  of  exchange,  that  it  would  to 
establish  an  office  to  do  this,  and  include  also 
one  other  banking  power,  that  is,  to  discount — a 
power,  too,  which  will  give  the  most  relief  in  most 
of  the  States.  To  have  power  to  do  the  one 
and  not  the  other,  is  a  distinction  in  the  consti- 
tutional powers  of  Government  that,  it  does  not 
appear  to  me,  the  human  mind  can  conceive  or 
comprehend. 

I  commend  to  the  honorable  Senator  the 
views  here  taken  of  his  argument  upon  the  dis- 
puted territory,  and  upon  the  provision  in  his 
amendment  authorizing  agencies  to  be  estab- 
lished ;  and  ask  him  if  it  is  not  clearly  shown 
that  both  the  considerations  upon  which  he 
urged  his  motion  have  failed  ?  The  power 
would  be  surrendered,  and  the  constitutional 
difficulty  not  removed. 

I  also  believe  it  would  be  found  as  difficult  to 
carry  out  this  plan,  in  practise,  as  it  has  proved 
to  be  to  defend  it  in  argument. 

The  amendment  proposes  to  establish  an  in- 
stitution which  would  be  impracticable — one  to 
do  business  in  one  State  with  an  office  under 
State  authority — and  in  another  with  an  agency 
under  National  authority.  A  Bank  cannotexist 
without  both  the  authority  and  protection  of  Go- 
vernment; it  must  necessarily  be  under  the  ju- 
risdiction of  one  government  or  the  other.  It 
cannot  be  under  both.  No  such  concurrent  ju- 
risdiction is  given  by  the  Constitution  over  any 
subject  committed  to  the  charge  of  the  General 
or  State  Governments.  Wemustmake  eitheralo- 
cal  or  a  National  Bank.  If  we  make  a  local  Bank 
for  local  purposes  only,  it  can  operate  only  where 
we  have  a  right  to  exercise  local  legislation.  If 
we  make  a  National  Bank  for  national  purposes, 
the  national  authority  and  protection  must  ne- 
cessarily accompany  it  in  its  extended  sphere  of 
duty  and  usefulness.  A  Bank,  with  a  national 
charter,  put  under  State  jurisdiction,  would  be  an 
anomaly  in  our  system.  In  undertaking  this  we 
should  surrender  a  power  that  might  be  usefully 
exercised  by  this  Government,  but  cannot  be  by 
the  States.  The  power,  on  their  part,  to  exer- 
cise any  prerogative  of  sovereignty  over  the  cor- 
poration, such  as  taxing  or  otherwise  controlling 
it,  would  de.eat  its  own  purpose,  by  preventing 
the  stock  from  being  taken,  and  the  corporation 
from  having  an  existence;  and  the  attempt,  on 
our  part,  to  inhibit  the  exercise  of  such  a  prero- 
gative, would  defeat  the  object  we  profess  to 
have  in  making  this  concession  to  State  sove- 
reignty. 

If  it  be  necessary  to  invoke  the  aid  of  State 
sovereignty  to  carry  out  national  objects,  of  this 
or  any  other  character,  let  the  negotiation  be  con- 
ducted by  parties  worthy  the  object  of  it — let  it 
be  carried  on  between  sovereigns,  not  by  a  cor- 
poration, on  the  one  part,  and  a  State  on  the 
other.  We  have  already  heard  enough  of  such  ne- 
gotiations; but  I  believe  it  is  not  necessary. 
The  people  settled  this  question  when  they  adopt- 
ed this  Constitution,  and  so  it  has  been  prac- 


I 


tised  upon  ever  since.  To  make  the  alteration 
now  proposed,  would  involve  the  subject  in 
many  real  difficulties,  and  not  escape  that  which 
the  friends  of  the  amendment  propose  to  avoid, 
and  which,  I  think,  an  imaginary  one. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  thus  far  examined  this 
question  as  it  was  presented  by  the  advocates  of 
the  amendment,  and  it  appears  to  me  they  will 
admit  that  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  if  all  theobjec- 
tions  which  they  urge  against  the  bill,  as-reported, 
really  exist,  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  pro- 
posed will  not  remove  them.  If  the  constitution- 
al power  of  this  Government  to  establish  the  of- 
fices of  this  Bank  is  questionable,  it  appears  to 
be  equally  so  to  establish  agencies  to  do  the  same 
business,  or,  if  slightly,  not  substantially,  diffe- 
rent. If  it  is  impolitic  and  unuise,  upon  any  dis- 
puted question,  to  drive  "either  party  to  the  wall," 
and  compel  him  to  surrender,  as  the  Senator  ad- 
monishes us,  it  is  shown  that,  by  the  amend- 
ment, a  surrender  of  the  whole  question  is  to  be 
made,  by  the  great  body  of  the  people,  to  a  very 
few.  In  fine,  that  every  consideration  presented 
to  induce  us  to  adopt  the  amendment  has  failed. 
I  now  desire  to  examine  some  of  the  grounds  of 
objection  to  the  reported  bill;  for,  if  they  can  be 
removed,  the  advocates  of  the  amendment  may 
support  the  bill,  as  they  will  now  agree  that  ice 
cannot  support  the  amendment,  and  yet  all  agree 
that  something  must  be  done. 

I  desire  to  say  a  few  words,  to  show  why  I 
think  the  power  to  establish  a  National  Bank 
should  not  be  regarded  as  a  doubtful  or  ques- 
tionable one.  I  shall  attempt  no  argument  up- 
on the  constitutional  question.  No,  sir,  I  shall 
not  so  far  forget  myself,  or  that  I  am  addressing 
Senators  distinguished  for  learning  and  of  great 
experience.  But  I  desire  their  permission  to  re- 
cite a  fi  w  facts  of  our  history,  upon  which  my 
convictions  rest,  that  this  Government  does  pos- 
sess the  constitutional  power  to  establish  a  Bank, 
and  that  this  has  been  constitutionally  determin- 
ed. 1  desire  this,  because  I  believe  the  same 
facts  which  have  convinced  me,  will  convince 
every  other  plain  man  in  our  country  who  has 
been  brought  up,  as  I  have  been, -at  the  plough, 
and  who  has  no  motive  but  to  see  this  question 
as  it  really  is. 

We  have  already  been  told,  on  this  floor,  by 
the  enemies  of  a  Bank,  that  they  intend  to  ex- 
cite and  arouse  the  people  upon  this  question. — 
For  what  purpose,  the  manner  in  which  it  has 
.been  announced  here  sufficiently  explains. 

The  first  fact  then,  to  which  I  shall  advert,  is 
grvenby  Mr.  Madison  in  the  introduction. I  think, 
to  his  history  of  the  debates  in  the  Convention 
which  formed  the  Constitution.  He  says  he  in- 
serts it  with  others,  that  we  may  the  better  un- 
derstand what  led  to  the  calling  of  that  Conven- 
tion. This  is  a  publication  ol  that  day,  urging 
the  necessity  of  such  a  Convention,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  conferring  on  Congress  the  power  to 
establish  a  National  Bank.  It  appears  then, 
that  to  give  this  very  power  was  a  leading  ob- 


ject of  the  Convention.  And  I  have  been  taught 
from  childhood  to  believe,  that  the  men  who 
composed  that'  Convention  never  failed  to  ac- 
complish any  laudable  objects  they  undertook. — 
This  is  a  pervading  opinion  with  all  classes  m 
this  country.  You  cannot  find  one  man,  unless 
he  be  a  partizan.  who  has  some  selfish  purpose  to 
answer,  who  does  not  believe  this.  Name  any 
member  of  that  Convention  to  any  man  you 
meet — name  Washington — and  say  when  you 
speak  that  name,  that  he  went  to  that  Conven- 
tion for  that  object — and  it  will  not  be  in  the 
power  of  all  the  demagogues  of  our  land  to  con- 
vince this  man  that  he  came  away  without  ac- 
complishing it,  or  without  believing  he  had  ac- 
complished it. 

I  agree  that  patriotic  men  may  doubt  whether, 
by  the  rule  of  construction  since  adopted,  all  this 
is  clearly  expressed!**,  the  instrument  itself;  but 
as  to  the  first  point,  the  intent,  none  can  doubt. 
The  high  and  noble  objects  of  these  men,  and 
their  character  lor  success,  has  given  them  an 
enduring  fame.  All  the  people  regard  them  as 
the  lathers  of  our  country.  The  Constitution 
they  gave  us,  the  institutions  which  have  grown 
up  under  it,  caused  our  prosperity,  and  made  us 
what  we  are.  A  feding  of  gratitude  toward 
them,  of  just  pride  in  their  fame,  and  in  the  in- 
stitutions they  have  given  us,  animates  every 
American  bosom,  and  forms  a  mutual  guaranty 
for  the  stability  of  these  institutions.  It  surely 
behooves  an  American  Senate  to  countenance 
and  cherish  that  feeling — it  forms  the  most  reli- 
able tie  that  binds  us  together  as  one  people. 

Subsequent  events  clearly  show  that  these  men 
thought  they  had  accomplished  the  object  of 
giving  to  Congress  this  power  to  establish  a 
Bank.  The  very  first  Congress  comprised  one 
or  more  of  the  same  men  in  it,  from  eleven  out  of 
twelve  of  the  States,  who  had  been  of  that  Con- 
vention, and  it  was  they,  with  others,  then  fresh 
from  the  people  which  had  just  adopted  the  Con- 
stitution, who  created  such  a  Bank.  Can  any 
one  douht  that  they  knew  well  what  had  been 
done  in  Convention,  and  what  powers  the  peo- 
ple had  conferred  upon  Congress,  by  the  instru- 
ment which  had  then  just  been  framed  and 
adopted  '?  It  would  be  as  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  men  would  not  know  the  children  they 
had  reared,  who  had  grown  up  (as  this  Con- 
stitution had)  under  their  own  eyesight  and 
guardianship.  This  act  of  the  first  Con- 
gress under  the  Constitution  stands  at  the 
head  of  that  line  of  legislative  proceedings,  in 
favor  of  this  power,  which  was  referred  to  by 
the  honorable  Senator  from  Virginia,  and  which 
he  thought  could  be  met  with  an  equal  "  oppos- 
ing force"  of  legislation  against  it.  In  1816, 
another  similar  act  passed.  I  omit  one  which 
did  not  receive  the  Executive  sanction,  and  need 
not  enumerate  the  many  enactments  which  were 
passed  within  (lie  forty  years  during  which  these 
[wo  acts  were  in  operation — all  asserting  the  va- 
idity  of  this  power,  and  making  a  phalanx  of 


legislative  force  in  defence  of  its  constitution- 
ality. I  may  here  be  permitted  to  review  the 
legislation  in  opposition  to  this  power  which 
the  honorable  Senator  has  arrayed  with  great 
skill,  and  has  asserted  with  confidence,  to  be 
equal  to  all  that  is  enrolled  in  support  of  it, 
some  of  which  I  have  referred  to.  This  legisla- 
tion consists  of  two  acts,  proposed  for  the  renew- 
al of  the  charters  of  the  two  Banks.  As  these  two 
propositions  never  became  laws,  the  honorable 
Senator  will  admit,  that  they  never  had  any  au- 
thority, for  any  other  purpose,  whatever  of 
strength  they  may  give  to  his  argument.  But  I 
admit  that  some  inferences  may  be  drawn  from 
the  failure  of  the  two  bills,  which  were  proposed  to 
recharter  the  Banks  :  the  facts  are,  that  the  first 
failed  by  the  casting  vote,  of  the  President  of 
the  Senate ;  the  second  passed  both  Houses  of 
Congress,  by  very  strong  majorities.  It  will  be 
recollected  that  it  is  his  display  of  legislative 
authority,  or  force,  upon  this  question  which 
I  am  examining.  The  result  is,  that  upon 
the  question  of  rechartering  the  Banks  (and 
no  other  adverse  legislation  is  pretended  to 
exist)  the  authority  is  balanced.  Congress  hav- 
ing in  one  instance  refused,  and  in  the  other 
given  its  sanction  to  a  law  for  that  purpose. — 
But  suppose  Congress  had  invariably  refused  to 
give  its  sanction  to  laws  for  rechartering  Na- 
tional Banks,  will  the  honorable  Senator  pretend 
that  it  would  afford  any  authority  for  denying 
the  power  to  establish  such  Bank?  I?  it  any 
thing  like  a  set  off,  against  the  sanction  given  to 
that  power  by  the  legislature  that  established 
one?  He  must  perceive  that  in  the  considera- 
tions which  would  control  that  question,  this 
power  might  not  be  included  at  all.  I  am  free 
to  confess  I  would  not  vote  for  the  recharter  of 
such  a  Bank,  unless  driven  to  it,by  an  apprehen- 
sion of  a  disastrous  revulsion  in  the  currency 
and  business  of  the  country ;  and  this  I  should 
not  apprehend,  if  there  existed  a  proper  spirit  in 
reference  to  them,  on  the  part  of  this  Govern- 
ment, and  which  would  induce  the  seasonable 
establishment  of  a  new  institution  to  supply  the 
place  of  the  old.  The  recharter  of  a  Bank,  I 
consider  (in  a  great  degree)  to  be  inconsistent 
with  its  character  as  an  institution  connected 
with  the  American  Government.  Such  a  Bank 
has,  in  part,  the  character  of  an  officer  of  Go- 
vernment ;  it  is  to  collect,  safely  keep,  and  dis- 
burse all  the  revenues  of  the  Government ;  it 
has  another  and  a  collateral  power,  which  is,  to 
furnish  a  sound  currency,  as  the  medium  for 
carrying  on  the  business  of  the  Government, 
and  of  the  people.  These  not  only  give  it  profit, 
but  invest  it  with  honor  and  dignity ;  elements 
highly  important  to  its  usefulness  in  all  respects, 
fotit  is  mainly  owing  to  this,  that  men  of  the 
highest  character,  undertake  the  conduct  of  its 
affairs — (and  we  have  seen  the  melancholy  ef- 
fects of  the  withdrawal  of  these  from  one,  which 
might  have  been  extensively  useful  with  them.) 
From  these  views,  it  is  manifest  that  such  an  in- 


stitution would  necessarily  come  within  that 
principle,  which  is  applied  to  all  (except  judicial 
officers)  who  enjoy  places  of  honor  and  profit' 
under  this  Government ;  I  mean  the  republican 
rule  of  "  rotation.'1'1  Considering  its  utility 
merely,  there  are  objections,  too,  to  a  recharter. 
Twenty  years  is  not  only  as  long  as  the  same 
men  ought  to  enjoy  the  advantages  referred  to, 
but  as  long  as  they  can  be  the  most  beneficially 
exercised  by  them.  In  that  time,  another  gene- 
ration comes  up,  with  whom  they  have  not  that 
sympathy  which  is  essential  to  the  most  harmo- 
nious, and  therefore,  the  most  successful  busi- 
ness intercourse.  Such  considerations  were  suf- 
ficient, and  I  have  no  doubt  did,  with  others, 
prevent  the  recharter  of  the  old  Bank,  by  the 
legislature,  aided,  perhaps,  by  the  doubts  of  some 
upon  the  question  of  constitutional  power. 

The  refusal  to  recharter  can,  with  no  more 
propriety  be  urged  as  a  denial  of  the  constitu- 
tional power  to  establish  a  Bank,  than  the  refu- 
sal to  re-elect  an  officer  when  his  time  was  out, 
could  be  urged  to  show  that  by  that  act  it  had 
been  determined  to  abolish  the  office.  In  refe- 
rence to  a  Bank,  I  would  prefer  the  establish- 
ment of  a  new  one  to  the  recharter  of  the  old. 
I  would  thus  distribute  the  stock  anew  among 
the  People.  In  this  way,  a  Bank  will  be  owned 
by  those  upon  whom,  and  for  whose  benefit  it  is 
to  act.  In  taking  leave  of  the  legislative  action 
of  the  Government,  which  the  honorable  Sena- 
tor has  presented,first  as  an  opposing  force,  and 
then  as  an  account '«  nicely  balanced,"  I  venture 
to  say,  that  in  the  ledger  which  contains  every 
legislative  act,  there  is  not  an  entry  which  is 
not  on  the  side,  and  in  favor  of  the  consti- 
tutionality of  this  power;  not  an  item  can  be 
found  as  a  set  ofl,  or  which  can  operate  as  a 
drawback  upon  it. 

As  the  action  of  the  Executive  Department 
of  the  Government,  is  included  in  the  laws  al- 
ready referred  to  in  support  of  this  power,  I 
might  omit  to  state  the  fact,  that  nearly,  if  not 
quite  every  President  has,  in  some  way  or  other, 
given  his  sanction  to  its  constitutionality.  The 
two  who  approved  and  signed  the  charters  of  the 
two  Banks,  are  so  prominent  that  they  need  not 
now  be  named. 

Having  already  explained  that  the  refusal  to- 
recharter  is  no  denial  of  this  power,  I  will  only 
say  that  in  the  veto  message  of  General  Jackson 
the  constitutional  power  to  establish  a  Bank  (as 
I  understand)  is  recognised  and  asserted. 

The  remaining  fact,to  which  I  at  first  alluded, 
and  the  controlling  one  upon  this  question,  is.that 
the  Supreme  Court  (the  Judicial  Power)  have 
repeatedly  and  unanimously  decided  that  Con- 
gress have  the  constitutional  power  to  establish 
a  National  Bank ;  and  this  is  the  only  constitu- 
tional mode  of  determining  the  question.  Sach 
has  always  been  the  pervading  conviction  of 
this  people,  as  their  conduct  has  shown. 
The  decisions  have  been  uniform — always  re- 
cognized, and  submitted  to  by  every  State  court, 


by  every  State  Government,  and  by  the  whole 
people.  If,  after  this,  men  will  contend  that 
it  is  still  an  open  and  a  doubtful  question,  they 
by  it  insist  that  no  question  can  be  settled  under 
our  Constitution.  None  can  ever  have  more 
conclusive  sanctions  than  this  power  has  re- 
ceived. And  I  now  ask  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Massachusetts — who  has  urged  us  to  act 
'upon  this,  as  an  unsettled  question,  and  to  post- 
pone its  settlement,  that  we  may  give  to  property 
invested  under  a  charter  from  this  Government, 
greater  security,  and  a  more  "quiet  life" — if  we 
should  not  greatly  impair  the  security  for  all 
kinds  of  property,  by  doing  an  act  which  brings 
intoquestion  the  validity  and  the  controlling  effect 
of  the  decisions  of  that  court?  To  vote,  as  is 
now  asked  of  me,  upon  the  ground  that  a  ques- 
tion decided  by  that  court,  as  this  has  been,  is 
not  yet  settled — would  be  acting  in  a  direction 
which  would  break  up  the  very  foundations  upon 
which  the  security  of'all  property  rests.  It 
would  remove  the  only  reliance  it  has  for  a 
•"quiet  life"  among  us.  This  is  a  controlling 
consideration  with  me,  in  the  vote  I  am  to 
give. 

It  is  from  no  want  of  respect  to  the  rights  of 
the  States,  that  I  refuse  to  vote  for  a  proposition 
to  make  the  action  of  a  National  institution  de- 
pend upon  State  authority  ;  but,  because  1  am 
satisfied  with  the  division  of  powers  between 
the  States  and  National  Governments,  as  it  was 
made  by  the  fathers  of  the  system,  and  has  been 
settled  by  the  practice  of  more  than  half  a  cen- 
tury. 

I  have  been  brought  up  to  contend  for  every 
right  of  the  States.  I  believe  the  General  Go- 
vernment has  powers,  too,  which  it  can,  and  is 
bound  to  exercise  for  the  benefit  of  the  people.  If 
my  views,  as  to  these  last,  have  been  strengthened 
of  late  years,  it  is  from  lessons  taught  by  a  mas- 
ter mind,  one  equal  to  Lie  subjects  it  has  grasped 
— and  worthy  the  age  we  live  in — Massachusetts 
will  not  wonder  at  my  faith  and  confidence. — 
Notwithstanding  this  confidence,  I  desire  to 
treat  the  doubts  expressed  by  others  upon  this 
question  of  constitutional  poAver.with  proper  de- 


ference. This  is  dictated  by  the  profound  re- 
spect I  feel  for  those  who  entertain  them — 
but  I  must  say,  to  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Virginia,  that  1  cannot  comprehend  the  rea- 
soning, by  which  even  a  doubt  upon  this 
point  can  be  sustained,  nor  can  I  conceive  that 
a  well-balanced  mind  can  refuse  assent  to  pro]  o- 
sitions  so  clear,  as  these  appear  to  me  to  be — cr 
can  hold  out  against  the  overpowering  force  of 
this  accumulated  authority. 

As  all  means  known  to  the  Constitution  have 
been  resorted  to,  to  settle  this  queston,  one  of  two 
things  must  be  admitted,  cither  that  it  is  now 
settled,  or  that  it  never  can  be,  under  that  instru- 
ment, and  therefore,  that  we  have  no  Constitu- 
tion for  such  a  purpose.  This  is  as  far  as  I  am 
willing  to  look  in  that  direction.  All  that  lies 
beyond  Heave  to  the  consideration  of  the  Hon. 
Senator  from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  CALHOUN,) 
who  said  to  us,  the  other  day  that,  a  revolution 
had  begun.  1  should  be  sorry  that  any  whig- 
measure  should  give  countenance  to  such  a 
doctrine. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Virginia  will  per- 
ceive that  with  these  views,  I  cannot  regard  this 
as  a  doubtful  question,  or  a  proper  one  for  com- 
promise. He  will  therefore  excuse  me  from  any 
participation  in  it  as  such. 

To  give  such  a  vote  and  to  give  it  upon  such 
grounds,  I  must  give  up  the  whole  history  of  my 
country  ;  I  must  turn  my  back  upon  all  the  les- 
sons of  experience;  I  must  disregard  the  author- 
ity of  its  great  names,  (and  Virginia  names  too,) 
I  must  put  out  the  light  that  reflects  from  their 
tombs  upon  every  page  of  this  Constitution,  and 
strike  down  that  Judicial  Star,  that  indicates 
the  true  polarity,  and  which  I  had  hoped 
would  direct  the  course  of  decisions  through  all 
coming  time.  And  yet  more,l  must  be  instrumen- 
tal in  thrusting  the  Constitution  of  my  country, 
its  institutions,  and  the  cherished  order  which 
surrounds  them, into  the  tumultuous  arena  of  par- 
ty politics,  and,  (if  I  may  borrow  language  re- 
cently and  patriotically  used)  thus  "commit  them 
to  a  fate  that  fills  the  imagination  with  horror." 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    000  741  054     1 


r 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


